brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Brickipedia:Articles for Rating/Class 1/5969 Squidman Escape
* Nominated by: 06:55, January 30, 2013 (UTC) * Nomination comments: I realize that the set - and therefore the article - is not very large, but for a little impulse set like this I believe the content is more deserving of a c1 than c2. Like BobaFett2 used to say, it isn't so much the article's length than the amount of content possible that counts. 06:55, January 30, 2013 (UTC) Vote score: +7, Technical Check: Currently OK ;Support # Even though I don't agree with BF2's line officially, this is still a good article, and this could start a whole chain of new c1s with this pass. -- 06:57, January 30, 2013 (UTC) # 23:30, January 30, 2013 (UTC) # # It looks good. 04:51, February 4, 2013 (UTC) # # Complies with MoS, detailed description. # Looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:01, February 6, 2013 (UTC) ;Object # Weak Just a few small things: :The note section should be above the minifigure gallery :There is a broken link in the S@H description template. :I would like a source for the prototype model in fact being for this set. I don't doubt it, I just want to be sure.:I am not overly fond of the lead section, but even if it isn't rewritten I will still support when the points above are fixed. 11:46, January # Per Berrybrick, I feel a source on the prototype is required. I don't really like it for c1, looks much more high-level c2 than a c1, but I won't vote against it for that (oppose is only for the lack of prototype source) 05:11, February 4, 2013 (UTC) : I found a source for it, and thought I gave it to Jeyo. Maybe not. :/ 14:51, February 4, 2013 (UTC) :: Sources added. 22:25, February 4, 2013 (UTC) ;Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) *Note section below minifigure gallery *Broken link in S@H description template30, 2013 (UTC) ;Comments * (actually, that wasn't what BF2 said at all. and almost all of us disagreed with him. :S) The article itself- it's definitely C1 in terms of quality, and, as it isn't cripplingly short, there's not much more to say. However, that said, I'm not supporting until the lead section is rewritten into something of a decent level. ** Well I wasn't quoting him, but that's basically what he was saying; that the length of an article doesn't matter if the content covers all it can. (I'll work on the lead section.) 07:09, January 30, 2013 (UTC) *** I do agree with Cligra, it was more a story of his getting upset people weren't supporting his thing due to length, and it really was a pointless forum, IMO. * I made an inventory in case that helps the nomination pass. - 11:46, January 30, 2013 (UTC) * 'The hood can be lifted up to reveal a pair of hand-held blasters for the officer.' What? I own the set, and it doesn't have any weapons for the officer. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 06:53, January 31, 2013 (UTC) ** Ah. I had misunderstood what the previous lead section stated. I'll remove that bit now. 06:57, January 31, 2013 (UTC) * Thanks KoN. :D The part numbers, apart from the ones that are missing which can't be helped, seem to be quite accurate. 10:24, February 2, 2013 (UTC) 04:03, February 6, 2013 (UTC)}}